§Why CasetextPricing

Giuliano, et al. v. Sandisk Corporation et al

MOTION to Stay Discovery and Other Case Deadlines Pending Resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class

16 Cited authorities

  1. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 8,463 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"

  2. Cmax, Inc. v. Hall

    300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962)   Cited 1,284 times
    Holding that a delay "is not the kind of prejudice which should move a court to deny a requested postponement"

  3. Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp.

    708 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 507 times
    Holding that it is within the discretion of a district court to enter a stay, regardless whether the parallel proceeding is "judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character" (quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers, 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979))

  4. Washington v. Brown Williamson Tobacco

    959 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1992)   Cited 223 times
    Holding that class representatives who allege different types of disparate treatment claims to class are atypical

  5. Stewart v. Winter

    669 F.2d 328 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that Rule 23 requires "that there be at least one issue whose resolution will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members"

  6. Fuller v. Amerigas Propane, Inc.

    NOS. C 09-2493 TEH 09-2616 TEH (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that Defendant's arguments showing judicial economy would be served by the stay

  7. IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. v. 8X8, Inc.

    Case No: C 13-01707 SBA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Case No: C 13-01707 SBA 11-12-2013 IPVX PATENT HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. 8X8, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG ORDER Docket 83 The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant 8x8, Inc.'s ("Defendant") administrative motion to clarify the Court's directives regarding discovery. Dkt. 83. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby STAYS all proceedings in this

  8. Thomas v. Moore USA, Inc.

    194 F.R.D. 595 (S.D. Ohio 1999)   Cited 14 times
    In Thomas v. Moore, plaintiffs, former employees, brought an antitrust suit against their employers for engaging in collusive conduct by allegedly agreeing not to hire or solicit one another's employees.

  9. Karoun Dairies, Inc. v. Karlacti, Inc.

    Civil No. 08cv1521 AJB (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2013)   Cited 1 times
    Agreeing that "moving forward with trial proceedings without awaiting the Ninth Circuit's decision requires the parties to expend significant time and expense to litigate issues . . . that may be completely invalidated by the Ninth Circuit's decision," and reasoning that "it would result in prejudice to both parties if the decision reached by the Ninth Circuit required additional expense and effort in this case by virtue of the case proceeding forward without awaiting its decision"

  10. Hanni v. American Airlines, Inc.

    No. C-08-00732 CW (EDL) (N.D. Cal. May. 27, 2009)   Cited 3 times

    No. C-08-00732 CW (EDL). May 27, 2009 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TEMPORARILY STAY DISCOVERY; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION DISCOVERY; AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ELIZABETH LAPORTE, Magistrate Judge I. BACKGROUND This is a proposed class action brought by Kathleen Hanni and her family against American Airlines that arises from flight delays on December 29, 2006. On that date, there were storms in Dallas, where the Hannis connected

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 97,825 times   674 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 16   Cited 34,667 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

  13. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,441 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"